MERGED--> Grammys thoughts thread+One performance discussion +monkey jumped off !!! - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2006, 07:35 PM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 08:28 AM
No one can stop anyone from listening to bad music... I never disagreed there. If people wanna listen to crap it's fine by me, but I'll beleve they have bad taste and won't respect their advice on music.

There's alot of music that I know is good and I respect that isn't my cup of tea, and I don't disrespect the taste of those who like it.
__________________

shart1780 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:36 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
catlhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,665
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Music is subjective, why? Becuase if music were truly all based on who's good, and who's not. We wouldn't be listening to U2, we would all be jamming to Beethoven etc. You can't say that because someone likes a performer you find subpar compared to another, that they have less of a right to enjoy them, than you do your's

That's not fair, nor is it right. Music is not a math problem. It's what you have in your soul, and heart, and what you wanna hear from whoever you may be listening to. To say that one>other turns music into a fact-based argument, which is not the case.

Someone who says that Kelly has a worse voice than Joe Shmoe is basing it off what THEY themselves believe about music, not what is universally known. The only universal fact about music that I can think of is that it speaks to our deep insides on levels that nothing else can. Opinion=fine. Fact=rude

It makes people feel inferior, which is not what Bono would want. It makes people feel that if they don't concur with someones assesment that Bach>Bono, they are somehow of a lesser right to voice their opinion, and that shouldn't be the case.
__________________

catlhere is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:38 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Okay, now all I can think about is Beethoven in the music store on Bill & Teds.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:40 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by catlhere
Music is subjective, why? Becuase if music were truly all based on who's good, and who's not. We wouldn't be listening to U2, we would all be jamming to Beethoven etc. You can't say that because someone likes a performer you find subpar compared to another, that they have less of a right to enjoy them, than you do your's

That's not fair, nor is it right. Music is not a math problem. It's what you have in your soul, and heart, and what you wanna hear from whoever you may be listening to. To say that one>other turns music into a fact-based argument, which is not the case.

Someone who says that Kelly has a worse voice than Joe Shmoe is basing it off what THEY themselves believe about music, not what is universally known. The only universal fact about music that I can think of is that it speaks to our deep insides on levels that nothing else can. Opinion=fine. Fact=rude

It makes people feel inferior, which is not what Bono would want. It makes people feel that if they don't concur with someones assesment that Bach>Bono, they are somehow of a lesser right to voice their opinion, and that shouldn't be the case.
Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

The fact is that Kelly Clarkson writes music that is both instrumentally and emotionally shallow. She can't even express herself through her music because she can't write it! You could argue the reason she became a singer was to become a superstar.

Bono is a good songwriter because he can write music that is honest, poetic and emotionally complex. Kelly Clarkson cannot do this, and I'd go as far as to say that people who think her music is good have an undeveloped taste in music. If you find the meaning in life from Hop on Pop by Dr. Seus I'm not gonna stop you, but I will question your emotional maturity.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:45 PM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.

The fact is that Kelly Clarkson writes music that is both instrumentally and emotionally shallow. She can't even express herself through her music because she can't write it! You could argue the reason she became a singer was to become a superstar.
You do realise that I could say that Thom Yorke is lyrically limited and that he doesn't really have a technical grasp of more complicated literary devices?

Ergo he’s crap.

It's a vicious circle.

Although you have to note that Clarkson is just a girl with a decent voice in my opinion that is.
ZeroDude is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:48 PM   #186
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780

Bono said he thinks Nickleback is bad.
and music of the Limp Bizkit variety (something along the lines of "rather take suicide pills").
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:49 PM   #187
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,657
Local Time: 01:28 AM
I know this is a bit off topic, and probably something that gets requested often, but does anyone have the clip of Bono giving Sinatra the Grammy for Lifetime Achievement? Or know a better thread to look for it?

I have the text of the speech, but I'd just like to see the video and Frank's tearful acceptance again.
lazarus is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:49 PM   #188
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 152,148
Local Time: 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


and music of the Limp Bizkit variety (something along the lines of "rather take suicide pills").
I believe he said the people who make rap-metal should go away and take suicide pills.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:50 PM   #189
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
RademR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 5,281
Local Time: 03:28 AM
i remember Fred Durst saying u2 were the greatest rock band ever
RademR is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:52 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Because, frankly, it isn't.

Bach is objectively better than Kelly Clarkson, to use an admittedly extreme example.

But that's a different debate.
It is still subjective cause you say Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, I think Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, but a 13 yr old girl may think Kelly Clarkson is better than Bach, therefore it is still subjective. We can't measure what or why people like what they like. There are many factors involved like appearance of the performer, the importance of songwriting by the performer to the listener, the complexity of the music or are they looking for a good hook, how many awards they or how many times they have been arrested, some people like music of certain artists because they project a certain image about the listener and so on.

I don't like country music but millions do, am I wrong or are they wrong, neither. People's individual tastes are just that, and as long as it makes people happy, that's all that matters.


ETA I think Nickleback is bad too.
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:53 PM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Axver

I believe he said the people who make rap-metal should go away and take suicide pills.
I had to go to a Limp Bizkit concert once. I'm with Bono on this one.
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:55 PM   #192
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ZeroDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 4,953
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k


It is still subjective cause you say Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, I think Bach is better than Kelly Clarkson, but a 13 yr old girl may think Kelly Clarkson is better than Bach, therefore it is still subjective. We can't measure what or why people like what they like. There are many factors involved like appearance of the performer, the importance of songwriting by the performer to the listener, the complexity of the music or are they looking for a good hook, how many awards they or how many times they have been arrested, some people like music of certain artists because they project a certain image about the listener and so on.

I don't like country music but millions do, am I wrong or are they wrong, neither. People's individual tastes are just that, and as long as it makes people happy, that's all that matters.


ETA I think Nickleback is bad too.
You win the thread.

I'd give you a Grammy if I had a spare one on me.

ZeroDude is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 08:21 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


If you were a fine chef would you want an award from the foundation of fecal matter sandwiches?

Contrary to popular beliefe, there is such a thing as crappy music. Despite the fact that some people honestly like the music at the Grammys, it's crappy. It's lacking in talent, creativity and depth. It's obvious that the music celebrated there is required to sell a bajillion copies before it will be considered. That in itself shows the quality of this award show, and the quality of the awards this show gives away.

Sometimes good records will get album of the year (i.e. Thriller). Sometimes good music will have mainstream apeal, but only certain kinds of music. These award shows are extremely close-minded. They don't encourage avant garde music of any kind. They only apreciate extremely mainstream music that is instantly accessable and wll arn thousands of dollars.

And I'll say it again, there is such a thing as bad music. U2's album wasn't bad, but I don't see how getting an award from a bunch of people who feast on crap to be a huge compliment.
The recording academy is made up of 12,000 members who vote every year for the nominations and then vote on the winners out this who get nominated. Each member of the academy is involved with the creation of music, either as a songwriter, engineer, producer etc. Over 110 music catagories are considered, most of it NOT being popular music. Only 12 catagories are shown during the actual televised event, the rest of the awards are passed out earlier in the day.

Music that gets the majority of the votes from the 12,000 members gets nominated during the first round of voting. The 12,000 members then vote on the top 5 nominees in the catagories. Arcade Fire was nominated in the Best Alternative Album field, but it did not receive enough votes to win. So, there are definitely academy members who vote for what many consider to be the more "alternative" or "indie" music artist, but often not in numbers that would get them a nomination or a Grammy win.

Notice that for Album Of The Year, Paul McCartney's album was nominated despite sales of only 400,000 in the USA and less than 1 million worldwide. Although sometimes the big sellers make it into this catagory it is not always the case, and there are often albums nominated that have poor sales compared to many other artist.

HTDAAB won because it first received enough votes to be one of the top 5 nominees in the first round of voting, and then for the winning round received more votes than any of the 4 competing albums. Its the plurality or the majority opinion of the Grammy academy. Its an opinion, no different from other awards from magazines or polls conducted elsewhere, my own opinion or your opinion.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 08:23 PM   #194
Babyface
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Local Time: 08:28 AM
First of all, congratulations to U2 on winning five grammies! They made an outstanding album. They deserve each and every grammy!

But, winning a Grammy is not the "end all, is all". It really is just an accolade and recognition for superior work. Plain and simple!
shopgirl144 is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 08:43 PM   #195
War Child
 
ZooMacPhisto800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montréal, QC
Posts: 763
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Eminem doesn't give a damn about a Grammy. Half of the critics can't stomach him, let alone stand him... but wouldn't it be weird if he won so they could sit him there next to Britney Spears but he'd probably want to switch chairs with Christina Aguilera so he can sit next to Carson Daly and Fred Durst.
__________________

ZooMacPhisto800 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com